OWNERSHIP OF HORSE.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18641, 20 May 1932, Page 7

OWNERSHIP OF HORSE.

THE CROUPIER CASE. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. PARTNERS IN RUNNING HORSE. • (By Telegraph.—Press Ausoclation.) AUCKLAND, Friday. « | declare that defendants are tho owners of the horse Croupier, and that plaintiff is not, as an owner, entitled to any share or Interest in the horse, i find that pialntlff and defendants wero partners in running the horsß In the following shares, namely, the plaintiff 50 per cent, and defendants 25 per oent. each. I decree that the partnership shall be dissolved, and that an aocount be taken by the registrar of the partnership dealings betwoon plaintiff and defendants from the dale when tho horso was entrusted to plaintiff’s care, and that tho affairs of tho partnership be wound up by the Court.” Thus Mr Justice Herdman concluded a very lengthy judgment to-day on the action taken in the Supreme Court by J. J- Corny, of Blenheim against John and James Paterson, of Auckland. The Judge said he drew tho inference that plaintiff and defendants agreed that the business from the beginning should be treated as a partnership in the running of the horse owned solely by the Patersons. After Corry had laid claim to the iiirse as owner the Patersons took steps to repossess themselves of it. “ Because that was done the plaintiff claims damages,” continued His Honour, hut as In my view he is not even a partowner of the animal I am not aware of any legal principle which would justify me in entertaining the claim for damages." The Evidence Summarised'.

In the course of the judgment Mr Justice Herdman said the Paterson owners and breeders of Croupier, had been identified with racing .many years, but in 1930 decided to discontinue and sell 30 horses on January 31. All were sold except Surveyor, Full Measure, arid a colt (Croupier). Plaintiff, who was on intimate terms with John Paterson, said that at the sale John pressed him lo tako Full Measure and the colt to Blenheim, and said that ho would givo him the colt. Corry said he did not want it, but eventually ag'recd, and said that If iL turned out any good Paterson would have a half-share. Paterson’s version differed altogether. He said that the colt was a good one, and he did not want to part with him. Paterson said that he suggested to Corry that the latter should look after the colt for him at Blenheim. James Paterson said he was never a party to making a gift of Croupier to Corry. The Court was therefore faced with conflicting statements. After the sale Croupier was sent to Blenheim, was trained by Corry’s trainer, and had a scries of successes that showed that lie was a colt of excellent prospects. It was important to note that it was not until the horse began to win races that any serious question arose about ownership. From CTmc lo time communications were addressed by Corry to John Paterson, and to that correspondence it was necessary to refer for tho purpose of deciding whether the statements contained in the letters were consistent with Corry’s claim that he was at one time sole owner of the horse. In a letter dated February 19, 1930, written by John Paterson in answer to Corry, Paterson used the expression “my yearling" when speaking about Croupier. On March 24 Corry, in a loiter, asked for instructions regarding nominating Croupier for races. In his early Jotters Corry had referred to Croupier as “your colt" when addressing Paterson. Up to that time there was no claim by Corry that ho owned the whole or any .part of the horse.

Whether the horse’s success Induced Corey to claim an interest or whether some other reason prompted him Lo claim that the horse had been given him the judge could not say. To discover it, it should be borne in mind that the horse was raced in Corey's own name without disclosing to the Racing Conference the truth about Ownership, which was an offence against the Rules of Racing. In his evidence Corry said, “I knew perfectly‘well that if I was not right about this horse every horse I had would bo disqualified. I was not going to take any risk. If it comes before the conference I will say that this horse was given to me and I always understood that was the position. If that horse was not given to me and I was allowing it lo be raced in my name it would be a most serious thing for me-—most serious.”

Change of Attitudo

Whatever the reason for the change of attitude, the fact remained 11rat in June, 1031, after the victories of the horse al Blenheim, Corry claimed that he owned him. One June 11 John Paterson wrote to Corry to know what lie was charging them for Croupier. Corry replied lliat lie always understood that the horse had been given to him, and lie was giving Ihe. Paiersons a half-share of Ihe winnings after expenses had been met. Other letters up to July 24 were quoted by the judge. The parties, said His Honour, were then haggling about the ownership and the winnings. The Patersons repudiated Corey's claim to ownership, but wilhout actually agreeing hinted that they might have to recognise that Corey's claim to an intoresL was valid. About the beginning of August, 103 i, Corry and tho two Patersons were registered under the rules of racing as having joint inleresls in the horse. Its nature was stated to be a partnership, “Curry's share fifty per cent and the Pattersons 23 per emit each." A material question was, did they own the horse in partnership, as under the Buies of Haring a joint interest was not Ihe. same! as ownership. IBs Honour thought Corry and the Patersons were partners lo Ihe extent Ilia! Corry was to have llfly per coni of the net winnings for looking after Hie horse.